No dualidad
Advaita / hinduismo
Budismo
Neurociencia / Meditacion
Meditacion
Notas huberman
Siguientes pasos
IA
automatizar subida web
ver notas loy
Logica
Jayatilleke, K.N. (1967). “The Logic of Four Alternatives”. Philosophy East and West. 17 (1–4): 69–83.
Ruegg, D.S. (September 1977), “The uses of the four positions of the Catuskoti and the problem of the description of reality in Mahāyāna Buddhism”, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 5 (1/2): 1–71, doi:10.1007/bf02431703, S2CID 189832953
Nakamura, Hajime (1954). “Kukao no kigo-ronrigaku-teki ketsumei, (English: ‘Some Clarifications of the Concept of Voidness from the Standpoint of Symbolic Logic’)” Indogaku-bukkyogaku Kenkyu, No. 5, Sept., 1954, pp. 219-231.
Leer ontology.buffalo.edu
Ontolgy first definition:
Overall, we can thus distinguish four notions of logic:
(L1) the study of artificial formal languages(L2) the study of formally valid inferences and logical consequence(L3) the study of logical truths(L4) the study of the general features, or form, of judgements
The larger discipline of ontology can thus be seen as having four parts:
(O1) the study of ontological commitment, i.e. what we or others are committed to,(O2) the study of what there is,(O3) the study of the most general features of what there is, and how the things there are relate to each other in the metaphysically most general ways,(O4) the study of meta-ontology, i.e. saying what task it is that the discipline of ontology should aim to accomplish, if any, how the questions it aims to answer should be understood, and with what methodology they can be answered
4.6 The form of thought and the structure of reality. (L4) meets (O3)
To take the simplest example, the form of our subject-predicate thoughts corresponds perfectly to the structure of object-property facts. If there is an explanation of this correspondence to be given it seems it could go in one of three ways: either the form of thought explains the structure of reality (a form of idealism), or the other way round (a form of realism), or maybe there is a common explanation of why there is a correspondence between them, for example on a form of theism where God guarantees a match.
At first it might seem clear that we should try to give an explanation of the second kind: the structure of the facts explains the forms of our thoughts that represent these facts. And an idea for such an explanation suggests itself. Our minds developed in a world full of objects having properties. If we had a separate simple representation for these different facts then this would be highly inefficient. After all, it is often the same object that has different properties and figures in different facts, and it is often the same property that is had by different objects. So, it makes sense to split up our representations of the objects and of the properties into different parts, and to put them back together in different combinations in the representation of a fact. And thus it makes sense that our minds developed to represent object-property facts with subject-predicate representations. Therefore we have a mind whose thoughts have a form which mirrors the structure of the facts that make up the world.
This kind of an explanation is a nice try, and plausible, but it is rather speculative. That our minds really developed this way in light of those pressures is a question that is not easy to answer from the armchair. Maybe the facts do have a different structure, but our forms are close enough for practical purposes, i.e. for survival and flourishing. And maybe the correspondence does obtain, but not for this largely evolutionary reason, but for a different, more direct and more philosophical or metaphysical reason.
Articulo mística: SEP, Ferrater, Cambridge
Variedade experiencia religiosa. Aprox Origen. Filo y mistica
Wittgenstein: Boero, IA: 2o Wittgenstein
def narrow:
a purportedly nonsensory or extrovertive unitive experience by a subject of an object granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of sense-perception, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection.
Unitive:God,etcAll natureBuddhist: unconstructed extrovertive experience devoid of a sense of any multiplicity of realities (ver biblio)
But relegious case no fusion so:
A purportedly nonsensory awareness or a nonstructured sensory experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of ordinary sense-perceptual cognition that is structured by cultural conceptions.
Purportedly Nonsenory awareness Nonstructured sensory experience Acquaintance (knowledge by participation) ver biblio sujeto/objeto. direct unmediated States of affairs
Many Buddhist traditions, however, make no claim for an experience of a supersensory reality but instead cultivate an experience of “unconstructed awareness” involving an awareness of the world on a completely or partially non-conceptual level (see Griffiths 1993). Prajnaparamita and Madhyamaka Buddhists refer to this as the experience of the “thusness” (tathata) or “thatness” (tattva) of reality that is accessible only in the absence of ordinary sense-perceptual cognition that is structured by cultural conceptions.
Durable personal transformation.
mystical<> religious
Dualistic / Monistic: Monistic experiences are the extreme of unitive experiences in that they dissolve all duality (Merkur 1999). They are either experiences of the absolute ontological oneness of everything, free of our conceptual distinctions, or are pure consciousness experiences.
Union / Identity. Eckhart / godhead.claimed that we and God share the same being (esse) supplied by a transcendent Godhead (Eckhart 2009, 109).
Apophatic:Sankara Advaita Nirguna BrahmanPlotino One IV.9.5Aquinas One is not Enneads V.3.14ver Priest OneIneffability Dionisio aeropagita
Paradoxicality11 Mysticism and morality
SEP: Buddha SEP: William James SEP: Meister Eckhart SEP: Nagarjuna SEP: Plotinus SEP: Shankara
Leyendo “la materia que respira luz” de Juan Arnau.
Tiene algunas ideas interesantes, se huele cierta inconsistencia.
La crítica al materialismo una vez más se expresa sin piedad. El materialismo es una metafísica. Mas bien es una teoría.
Se postula la materia con ciertas características. Esa idea es refutada por la de la idea de la materia en la teoría cuántica.
teoría cuántica
Realismo no local. EPR Entanglement Realismo no funciona. Papel del observador instrumento de medida. No determinismo. Colapso función de onda o es un no determinismo intrínseco. Emisión radioactiva Ideas importantes
La cuántica nos hace replantear cuestiones como el realismo, determinismo. En ese sentido se habla de consecuencias filosóficas. Creo que no es correcto decir eso. Refuta el materialismo clásico (que es el MUNDO) de la física clásica. Materia inmutable, determinismo, tiempo espacio, localidad Descubrimos dos cosas el MUNDO es una construcción teórica. El mundo clásico (postulado) no es consistente con el mundo cuántico. De allí se derivan cuestiones como que hay una dualidad onda / partícula. Con las gafas del mundo clásico vemos esa dualidad. Curiosamente se presente como una contradicción. Habra que ver otras cosas como la noción de partícula, la posición/velocidad(incertidumbre), la creación de partículas desde la nada (energia) de form no determinista
Respecto a la conciencia Todo nos empuja a que la conciencia es algo distinto de la materia. Se dice que desde descartes la escisión cogitans /extensa se dejó fuera todo lo no material. Mas bien sirvió a la ciencia / física para decir que todo es materia (res extensa). Lo no material dicen que no debería dejarse de lado pq según todo indica (y todas las tradiciones indican) es un elemento fundamental e irreductible de la realidad. No se. El tema es complejo pq toda idea de materia implica un realidad existente e independiente del observador (¿la quántica lo pone en duda o no?). Como mínimo lo que hace la quántica es obligarnos a una teoría de la materia radicalmente diferente la de de la física clásica.
Dualidades determinismo vs no determinismo realismo vs no realismo localidad vs no localidad unidad / todo / partes la dualidad sujeto / objeto nada / vacío vs entes relaciónalidad vs independencia ¿Como se articulan? A la Hegel? Conciencia unica vs multiples yo / ego / conciencia
Hipótesis La conciencia misma tal como la vemos nos resulta inexplicable pq la “ontologia” que usamos no es la correcta. Un punto crítico es la dualidad sujeto objeto. La conciencia es un sujeto sin objeto. Y al final es un sujeto unico. Conciencia universal. Los objetos del munto no son tale sino elementos de la conciencia. Tambien pensamientos sentimientos etc. ¿Como se resuelve el problema del munto externo? ¿De la intersubjetividad? ¿La verdad matemática la lógica y la ontologia clásica no seran otras teorías? Las cosas en sí mismas, las propiedades(categorías) de las cosas son teorías? El principio del tercio excluso o los axiomas son teorías? ¿Las lógicas son teorías? La verdad matemática ya se ve como algo abierto y a la vez limitado. ¿que se sigue que sea abierta? ¿que sigue de que sea limitada? ¿Inefabilidad?
Habla Fisher de la distinción Real vs real en el caso del capitalismo. El meollo de “realismo capitalista” es justamente eso la realidad del capitalismo (“no hay alternativa”) la que nos oculta la Realidad. (como decíamos arriba)
[^402]